Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlPhAbEt


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. Denelson83 21:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

AlPhAbEt
Non-notable, original research. Was deleted on de: already .--Gwaihir 01:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems a genuine article about a real language. See also . Turnstep 02:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Google searching very difficult, due to the common name. Turnstep 13:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you search Google with 'alphabet' and 'queack', there are four hits, identical copies of this article on and, and talk pages to go with them. - Dalbury (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that presumes a lack of articles that don't mention 'queack.' It's possible that there are articles about this language out there, but is, frankly, very improbable. Guess it serves the author right for choosing such a bad name :) (compared to, say, "Gamizeta"). Turnstep 18:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete searching for "AlPhAbEt programming language Niehage" in google (no quotes obviously) yields only 4 results. Wikipedia is not the right place to house every single home-made esoteric language ever. esolangs.org is. --Bachrach44 03:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Bachrach44. NSLE  ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 08:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bachrach Dottore So 11:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. A programming language should at least have a review somewhere before being included in Wikipedia. Also 4 Google hits seem to be a new all-time-low-mark even on AfD. --Pjacobi 13:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, NN, I suspect a hoax. - Dalbury (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, direct copies or translations of primary sources are not appropriate for Wikipedia. If anyone wants to make a case for notability, they are welcome to write an original encyclopedic article and cite the copy of this on esolangs.org as a source, but I wouldn't want to bet on any article on this subject surviving AfD; it's just not widely-enough known, even within its field. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears to be original research. HGB 11:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. *drew 02:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.